A Set of RFI Responses for Sherlock Holmes

Andy Updegrove writes "In early May, Massachusetts issued a 'Request for Information' on plugins that could help ease the transition from a Microsoft Office based environment to one relying on ODF compliant software. Now the seven responses received have been posted by the ITD: six from vendors large and small — and one from Microsoft that purports to be informational, but in fact gives no information beyond what is already publicly available. Like everything else in the ODF saga, many of the responses are as much political as technical, with some delivering off-topic messages, one (from the ODF Foundation, strangely) refusing to disclose much at all, and several contradicting each other on the technical challenge of working with Office absent further code disclosures by Microsoft. All in all, they make for an intriguing read on multiple levels — offering more of an Easter egg hunt than informative offering. It will be interesting to see which, if any, of these offerings the Mass. ITD decides to utilize."

Comments

Slashdot editors...

[DragonWriter]

I understand how things like "levels &mdash offering" get left in comments, but aren't the stories notionally "edited" by an "editor"?

Microsoft as a machine.

[OnlineAlias]

It amazes me how Microsoft can be so ridiculously incompetent at some things, like ensuring Vista gets out on time, while managing to be perfect quality asshats around the world when it comes to bundling, IP, patents and competition. They did just enough here to appear cooperative. Same as they did with DOJ, same as they are doing with the EU.

For some reason, when it comes to being big giant anticompetitive liars, their mission is always perfectly executed. It is quite amazing, really.

Re:Microsoft as a machine.

[pla]

They did just enough here to appear cooperative.

The FP says MA wanted info "that could help ease the transition from a Microsoft Office based environment" (bolding mine).

What motivation did Microsoft have to cooperate at all? "I would like you to give me information on the best time and place to kick you in the balls".


Same as they did with DOJ, same as they are doing with the EU.

Again... "We have decided to go on a witch hunt, and you look like a witch... Please provide evidence that would allow us to burn you and confiscate your property, so we don't have to settle for just drowning you". I don't really see the motivation on MS's part there...

Re:Microsoft as a machine.

[nasch]

What motivation did Microsoft have to cooperate at all?

None, and nobody expected them to. What's being pointed out is that they're pretending to cooperate, rather than openly saying "Frack you, Massachusettes!" Which is also exactly what I would expect from them.

Let me go out on a limb ...

[LaughingCoder]

It will be interesting to see which, if any, of these offerings the Mass. ITD decides to utilize

Having lived in MA most of my life, let me describe the selection process that will be used. First, which of the companies has significant ownership by MA pols or relatives or friends of MA pols? Since MA is a one-party state there is non-existent oversight on these matters. If that does not determine a clear winner, we move on to the next most important criteria ... which of the submitters is most willing to be shaken down -- you know, concessions paid for considerations given. Campaign contributions, promises of jobs to relatives, donations to "favorite charities" etc. The next most important attribute to consider is the perceived evils of the submitters. Clearly Microsoft will be dismissed outright on general principals. Consideration must be given to the affirmative action record of the submitters. What is the ratio of the CEO's salary to the workers' salaries? What is their record as regards unions. Which political party do they support? Finally, only after all of these important questions have been answered will consideration be given to technical merit, cost, likelihood of success and proven track records. With any luck it won't have to come down to those nasty tiebreakers, because those are much harder to determine. If it did however, they would then hire some well-connected, very expensive consultants (i.e. friends/relatives of the ruling class) to sort through the technical issues.

Is It Too Much To Ask... ?

[susano_otter]

Is it too much to ask that an article with the headline "A Set of RFI Responses for Sherlock Holmes" actually be about RFIs written as if by Sherlock Holmes, or a set of responses written as if by prospective clients of Sherlock Holmes?

Re:A VB Macro Converter

[mrchaotica]

I was under the impression that VB.NET and VB Script (which is what gets embedded in Office documents) are about as different as Java and Javascript.

How 'bout Off Topic?

[Mateo_LeFou]

For an RFI pertaining to ODF they sure spend a lot of verbiage on

• 1. How great the Office binary formats are, and how much everyone loves them
• 2. How great the Office XML format is, and how much ECMA loves it. (Which I find odd, since if #1 is true where's the demand for the XML format?

Re:Open?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Indeed, if you're writing it from scratch you can even distribute testing builds as binary-only, and only release the source after it's been developed to the point where it's stable (or whenever).

If you're writing it from scratch and only releasing binaries it's not (yet) Open Source then, is it?

And then we have the likes of Sveasoft who like to distribute GPL'ed software under the guise of 'not really quite happy with it yet' for money without source compliance.